Capital Trials and Mental Illness in the Courtroom Flashcards
(83 cards)
1
Q
How do we study juries?
A
- Jury simulations
- Post-trial interviews
- Archival research
- Field Studies
2
Q
Jury Simulation
A
Experiment
- Mock jurors
- Presented with manipulated trial stimulus
- Render verdict, respond to measures
3
Q
What do jury Simulations allow that other types of research do not?
A
Cause and effect
4
Q
Issues with jury Simulations
A
- Consequentiality
- length of trial/deliberation (ecological validity)
- Trial stimulus: Being in a lab different from court
- Often undergraduate students –> difficult to generalize,, looks at verdict not deliberation process
5
Q
Post-trial Interviews
A
- Only in US - Discuss how they decide the verdict what they discussed
6
Q
Issues with post-trial interviews
A
- Relying on self-report
- Memory can be unreliable
- Illegal in Canada
7
Q
Archival research
A
- uses real court info, look at large trends
- Look at real outcomes - consequentiality
8
Q
2 Main issues with Archival Studies
A
- Depends on what is collected at court level
–> Hard to look at something like race, not collected - Low internal validity
–> Establishing why there is an effect happening
–> Difficult to do
9
Q
Field Studies
A
- Courtroom observations
- shadow juries - Pay participants to watch the trial (quasi-experimental)
- Exposed to same info as jury
- Look at hoe they delierate, their verdict
e.g. Note taking and juror-questioning during the trial
10
Q
Issues with field Studies
A
- Costly and time consuming
- Logistically difficult
- Internal validity issues
11
Q
Aversive Racism
A
- Over racism: No longer socially acceptable to be racist
- Still largely occurs
- Due to implicit views
12
Q
Aversive racism: Why?
A
- We have egalitarian explicit views that guide our outward behaviour
- Desire to be outwardly kinds and non-discriminatory
- aAre able to ambitiously discriminate through subtle behaviour
13
Q
Race Salience
A
- Make relevant racial issues very salient in the trial, state it is race-based
- Any aversive racists would be inclined to hide their views and express discrimination more subtly
14
Q
When race salience is stated explicitly…
A
White jurors hide their views
15
Q
Race Salience in Canada
A
- Doesn’t work in Canada
- Cause stronger bias against indigenous and Black defendants (Backfiring effect)
16
Q
Backfiring effect
A
- Because Canadians do not see themselves as racist
-* The suggestion to correct their assumptions makes Canadian’s more likely to pay attention to race and discriminate because they don’t see racism as an issue
17
Q
Racial Composition of the Jury - Study
A
- All white or racially diverse juries
- Black defendant charged with SA
- Look at deliberation
18
Q
Racial Composition of the Jury - Study RESULTS
A
Diverse Juries: Performed way better, deliberate longer and cover wider amount of information
White juries: More inaccurate information
–> White jurors function differently with racial minorities in the jury
–> Makes race more salient to white jurors
–> Makes them correct and pay attention to their biases
19
Q
US and Capital Trials
A
- 27 with
- 3 with moratorium
- 23 without
20
Q
Amount of people on death row in US
A
2,414
21
Q
Capital Trial - Gender
A
98% male
22
Q
Capital Trial - Race
A
42% white
40% black (only make up 14% of population)
23
Q
Fully exonerated _______
A
190 individuals, 103 black defendants
Racialized suspects highly likely to be wrongfully convicted
24
Q
Death penalty myths
A
- Deterrent
- Cheaper
- Humane
25
Death penalty - Deterrent
- No link between capital punishment and less homicide
- Does not deter people from committing crime
- especially homicide
- Doesn't work
26
Death penalty - Cheaper
- Longer/more controlled legal process
- Significantly more expensive
--> Costs at least $1 million more to send someone to death row
27
Death penalty - Humane
- Lethal injections cannot be administered by doctors (hippocratic oath)
- Usually volunteer nurses who mess up the doses
- usually causes huge amount of pain and suffering for hours
- Several botched injections
28
Capital trials have to have ....
A jury (only in the US)
29
Why are capital trials different from other criminal trials?
- Jurors decide sentence
30
Bifurcated Trial System
Guilt phase: No prosecution hase to decide
Sentencing phase: Decide if they receive the death penalty or not
**Same sett of jurors in each stage
31
Questions Asked to juror before Capital Trial Begins
1. Must be willing to impose death penalty
2. Must be willing to impose life sentence (to no automatically choose death penalty)
**IF not, removed from jury
32
Who is more likely to get death penalty qualified?
- Old
- Male
- White
- Conservative
33
Comparison of Death qualified vs normal qualified at guilty phase of sentencing - Study
- Show all same homicide trial
- Death qualified vs non death- qualified
- Those who were non-death qualified were only 53% likely to find defendant guilty
- Issue that prosecutors are more likely o try for death penalty with death qualified jurors, later dropping it, because they are more likely to find the defendant guilty
34
Craig Hainey - Jurors, verdicts, and death penalty
- Argues that the qualification process for jurors puts them innto mindset of conviction
- Jurors who view the questions, more likely o find guilt or sentence to death
35
If juror is guilty in a capital trial case, there are two options:
1. Death penalty: require unanimous agreement between 12 jurors
2. Life without parole
36
Mitigating factors
- What defence presents
- Things that make defendant less deserving of death
- Childhood, trauma, potential for rehabilitation
37
Aggravating Factors
- What prosecution presents
- Things that make defendant more deserving of death
- Heinousness of crime, prior assets, number of victims
38
Examples of Mitigating factors
- Teen parents
- Father committed suicide - History of mental illness
- Grandparents - alcoholism
- Low IQ
- Sexual Assault
- Brain damage
39
Aileen Wurnos - Mitigating/aggravating factors
- They did not consider any mitigating factors outside of her borderline personality disorder
40
Aggravating factors
- Murder was heinous cold, calculated
- Previous felony conviction (threat of violence)
- Murder was committed while committing another crime (Robbery)
- Murder was committed to avoid another crime
-e.g Killing of Richard Malloy
41
Race and the Death Penalty
- Mixed findings
- some research finds that black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death
--> More consistent finding is the victim race
42
White victim effect
Much more likely to sentence defendant to death if its a white victim
43
Black male victim
- Low likelihood of sentencing to death
- Jurors seem to value white lives more
44
Murder of Tim McLean
- Greyhound bus
- Murdered by Vincent Li
- Drew a knife and stabbed McLean
- Police called immediately, long standoff
- During this time, Li mutilated and beheaded McLean
45
How did Vincint Li Plea?
NCRMD
- Psychiatrist said he was hearing voiced from god that told him to murder the demon beside hime
- He was schizophrenic
- Found NCRMD
46
Vincint Li - Update
- 2017, given absolute discharge
- Found that he no longer posed a threat to the public
47
Fitness to stand trial
- Defendants should be able to:
1. Understand what is going on
2. Communicate with lawyers
48
Bill C-30
If anytime during trial/sentencing they are unable to do so (2 things deemed fit to stand trial), on the account of a mental disorder
1. Understand nature and object of the proceedings (cannot comprehend reality)
2. Understand the possible consequences of the proceedings
3. Communicate with counsel
49
Vincint Li - Fitness to Stand trial
At the time, found fit to stand trial
- At time of assessment, he was no experiencing psychotic symptoms
- Given psychotic medications
- Psychiatric symptoms only occurred during the crime, not present during assessment
50
Fitness to Stand trial - Study in US
2/3 of those w severe mental health issues were found fit to stand trial
- Defendants meet minimum standards
51
How does the inquiry into fitness to stand trial occurr?
- Already assumed by court that the defendant is fit to stand
- Burden of proof is on the person who raises the issue
- Have to balance the probabilities (more likely than not client is fit/unfit)
52
Assessing Fitness to Stand
- Recommended 5-day assessment period - Can have up to 60 days
- Take defendant out of custody and assess in mental health facility
- Crown often does not want this
53
Assessing fit - Canada
Usually takes 18-21 days
- Psychologists are excluded
(Cannot be the one to asses)
- Have to have a medical degree (psychiatrist or general practitioner)
- No need for psychological background but they can assist
54
Fitness to stand -- Process
- Interview with defendant and family
- Previous history
- Psychological tess
- Final report: conclusiion of fitness (Judge rarely disagrees)
55
Ultimate Issues testimony - NFTS
- Psychological ttestimony about the appropriate legal decision
- Psychologist can literally say this person is fit/not fit
- usually not legally allowed
56
Fitness Interview Test - Revised
- Semi-structured interview
- Specified in canadian criminal code
- Takes 30-40 minutes
- 3 Sections
57
3 Sections of Fitness interview test - revised
1. Factual knowledge of legal procedure
2. Appreciation of nature of proceedings
3. Communication with counsel
58
Most people found unfit o stand are...
- Unemployed
- Unmarried
- Experiencing psychotic disorder
59
If deemed unfit...
- Goal is to restore fitness (medication primary)
- Detained in hospital/conditional discharge
- Reassessed in 45 days
- After 90 days, if still unfit, goes to larger review board
- Annually review case
60
If a review board finds that a person is unlikely to become fit...
- Rare designation
- Only absolute discharge if:
- Accused unlikely to become fit
- does not pose significant threat
- Stay in proceedings in interest of proper administration of justice
61
Insanity dfence
Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental disorder (NCRMD)
62
Proving these criteria are very difficult (NCRMD)...
- Mental illness at time of offence
1. If a mental illness renders person incapable of appreciating nature of the crime and quality of the act
OR
2. Mental illness renders person incapable of knowing act was wrong
63
Issues with assessing NCRMD
1. Time
- At exact time of the crime, mental illness made them incapable of knowing the quality and consequences of the crime
- Usually assessed after the crime occurred
2. Legal language
- Language behind NCRMD is hard to understand
64
Timing NCRMD
- Retrospective evaluation
- How defendant was functioning in the past - could be years ago
- Defendant may have medication and therapy
- Major memory issues due to time has passed
65
Language NCRMD
- legal definition is vague
- Incapable of appreciating nature and quality of act
- how do we prove this?
- Much harder to prove than someone's ability to communicate with their lawyer
- Very subjective and abstract
66
Three options for courrt/judge is found NCRMD
1. Absolute Discharge
2. Conditional Discharge
3. Ordered to psychiatric facility
67
NCRMD - Absolute Discharge
- Charges entirely dropped
- Almost never happens
68
NCRMD - Conditional Discharge
- Free but conditions to meet
- Parole officer
- Rare but does happen
69
NCRMD - Ordered to Psychiatric Facility
- Indeterminate amount of time
- Remain until review board releases them
- Often a long time
70
Capping
- maximum time a person can spend in a facility
- Issue: if dangerous at the end of their cap, they will be indefinitely committed
71
NCRMD and time served - Research
People found NCRMD spend far longer ini the system than if they had gone through the criminal system
72
True or false: people found NCRMD "get off easy"
Actually in their best interest to serve a sentence in jail
73
Deciding disposition
Deciding where to send someone with NCRMD
1. Public safety
2. Mental state of defendant (potential to reintegrate)
3. Reintegration of defendant into society
4. Other needs
74
True or false: Those found NCRMD will get out and re-offend
- only 10% reoffend within 3 years
- Generally less likely o reoffend
- In general- people with mental disorders no more/less likely to re-offend
75
How many cases argue insanity defence?
1%
76
How many individuals in Canada get a NCRMD verdict?
0.2%
- Lawyers recommend that people do not pursue this
77
Automatism
- Type of defence, more rare than NCRMD
- Argue behaviour was unconscious/involuntary
- Do not remember behaviour
- Not in control
- Judicial discretion
- Cannot related to any mental disorder
78
If decide automatism, what happens?
- Judge rules non-insane automatism, treat this as not guilty
- Would not go to facility or jail
79
Possible Causes for automatism
- Head trauma
- CO poisoning
- Involuntary intoxication
- Physical health ailment
80
Jurors Perception of Insanity defence - Study
- Have negative attitudes
- Often due to inaccurate beliefs
-Study on educating jurors on myths
- Half educated, half control
- Present NCRMD transcript
81
Jurors perceptions of the Insanity Defence - Study results
- Education = more positive attitudes of NCRMD
- No effect on verdict
-Second study = No effect on attitude or verdict
Take away: Attitudes toward NCRMD are resilient
- Emotions can influence and drive attitudes
82
Even if not found NCRMD...
- Does not mean the defendant doesn't have mental illness
- MH issues much more common in incarcerated population
73-79% of offenders have mental illness (more in women, 79)
83
How much higher prevalence is mental illness in the incarcerated population?
4-7x higher than general population
